The National Trust describes itself as an environmental organisation. It is not surprising, therefore, that it has instructed its 700 farming tenants to go green. But in doing so, the trust has knocked organic farming off its pedestal and brought the debate on the future of British agriculture down to earth. Its strategy, spelt out in its document, Agriculture 2000 and Beyond, represents a victory for common sense.

It's not often you read about a victory for common sense in the Guardian. The phrase is usually the preserve of the Daily Mail and I use it, not merely because it is apt, but because I know it will annoy.

While many of my colleagues have consistently claimed that organic farming is the only way forward for British agriculture, I have waged a lone campaign to bring a green, but more pragmatic method of production to the attention of the public. It is called integrated crop management, or ICM. Now that I find so many of my arguments reiterated by the trust, I feel vindicated.

The National Trust is the biggest landowner in Britain, with 243,000 hectares in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the "people's landowner", and as such has a responsibility to respond to public concern about land management.

This it has done in announcing that one of its objectives for the next century is for its farms to produce "wholesome, marketable food". But it specifically states that organic farming "is not the sole way forward".

The trust's farmers aren't some special breed. They face the same challenges as other farmers and work in the same world. Just as only about 2% of farms nationally are organic, so it is with the trust's tenants. To put it clearly: I am not anti-organic. We could and should have more organic farms and their numbers will increase in response to the growing demand for organic produce. However, as Agriculture 2000 and Beyond recognises, organic farms will remain a minority for the foreseeable future. The organic approach will never be suitable for every farm or every type of land.

As the trust says, organic farming "can be relatively intensive and can be as harmful to herb-rich grasslands or archaeological features as some forms of conventional farming".

The National Trust believes the best way forward for most farmers is to combine ICM with conservation techniques advocated by bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Game Conservancy and Farmers' Wildlife Advisory Group.

What then is ICM? Pioneered by an organisation called Leaf (Linking the Environment and Agriculture) it takes the natural system of crop rotation and many other of our ancestors' farming practices and integrates them with the latest technology. Hedges are encouraged rather than ripped out, because they are the natural habitat of creatures that feed on destructive pests. Those pesticides that are used have excellent environmental profiles and are targeted rather than used prophylactically. Yields drop slightly, but so do costs, and performance is often better than from conventional methods.

ICM has already proved popular with farmers in the private sector. But they continue to be demonised in the media as rapists of the earth, with the word "organic" often used as a weapon to beat them - to the distress of many in the Soil Association.

Farmers and consumers need an honest broker and happily the trust acknowledges that it is "in a strong position to form a bridge between urban and rural communities" and "to make farming more accessible and understandable to those who live in urban communities".

Supermarkets are already playing a role in introducing ICM producers to consumers, with Sainsbury's posting photographs of their suppliers in store. But as ICM does not yet have a brand image, its message is a difficult one to get across and unfortunately there are plenty of people who are happy with that.

Organic produce is taking up an increasing amount of space in those supermarkets that specialise in premium-priced food and may be looking for new ways to justify their prices. Furthermore, it remains the favoured child of environmental pressure groups.

Yet this represents a continuing threat to the developing world. It is harder to control pests in tropical climates than temperate, and poor farmers continue to be denied the technology and information they need to manage their farms in a way that is both effective and environmentally sound.

It is time we took an honest look at the situation and perhaps used some of the lessons learned here to help our less fortunate brethren elsewhere in the world. Leaf is already offering advice to farmers in Sri Lanka and India.

Meanwhile, I look upon the future planned for the National Trust's tenants with some satisfaction. To borrow a phrase from Julie Burchill, I knew I was right.